Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd. ... vs Jagdev Singh And Another on 18 February, 2009
FA/246/2024 CHOLAMANDALAM MS GEN. INS. LTD. VS. MR. JAGDEV SINGH & ANR DOD:24.04.2024
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.53 seconds)Gold (Control) Act, 1968
The Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Consumer Protection Act, 2019
Section 15 in The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 [Entire Act]
Commr.Of Income Tax-I,New Delhi vs Vatika Township P.Ltd on 15 September, 2014
8. Moreover, unless the legislature explicitly provides that the
amendment is retrospective in nature, it will be considered
prospective. The aforesaid view has been taken by the Apex Court in
the case of CIT v. Vatika Township (P) Ltd. reported in (2015) 1
SCC 1 wherein the Court discussed the proviso to Section 113 of the
Income Tax Act, 1961 and held that it was prospective and not
retrospective. While deciding the case, the Constitution Bench laid
down certain general principles which have been reproduced as
under:
Hitendra Vishnu Thakur vs State Of Maharashtra on 12 July, 1994
9. Similarly, the Apex Court in Hitendra Vishnu Thakur vs State of
Maharashtra reported in 1994 (4) SCC 602, the court has culled
out the ambit and scope of an amending Act and its retrospective
operation and has held the following:
Basawaraj By Lrs Ors vs Spl.Land Acquisition Officer on 11 April, 2011
14. In order to condone the delay, the Appellant has to satisfy this
Commission that there was sufficient cause for preferring the appeal
after the stipulated period. The term 'sufficient cause' has been
explained by the Apex Court in Basawaraj and Ors. vs. The Spl.
Land Acquisition Officer reported in AIR 2014 SC 746. The
relevant paras of the aforesaid judgment are reproduced as under:-
Anil Kumar Sharma vs Chairman & Managing Director, United ... on 2 July, 2015
15. We also deem it appropriate to refer to Anil Kumar Sharma vs.
United Indian Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. Reported in
IV(2015)CPJ453(NC), wherein the Hon'ble NCDRC held as under:-